Which is why SOFTWARE LICENSES MATTER EVEN FOR "REGULAR PEOPLE". it isn't just neckbeard nerds using open and Free licenses. It's people who can see what's coming (not to mention what's already here).
This is not a one-sided anti-consumer ruling. As mentioned, many open source licenses depend on circumventing the first sale doctrine.
"We read Wise and the MAI trio to prescribe three consider-
ations that we may use to determine whether a software user
is a licensee, rather than an owner of a copy. First, we con-
sider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is
granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright
owner significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the
software. Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner
imposes notable use restrictions."
The ALA fears that the software industry’s licensing practices could be adopted by other copyright owners, including book publishers, record labels, and movie studios.
These are serious contentions on both sides, but they do not alter our conclusion that our precedent from Wise through the MAI trio requires the result we reach. Congress is free, of course, to modify the first sale doctrine and the essential step defense if it deems these or other policy considerations to require a different approach.
« Older “Star Wars: The Solo Adventures” (2D)... | Timothy Gray wants to be just ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt